scope cost madness

[willie_gunn]

I've always figured that you spend more time looking through binos than looking through the scope, and more time looking through the scope than you do pulling the trigger on the rifle, so spend your money in proportion.

If all you are doing is looking at the ticket price on the binos, then doubtless you will decide to spend £300 rather than £1300, but if you're considering second-hand/resale value, after-sales service, etc then you start to realise what you are paying for. Bushnells, Nikons, Optolyth's, Steiner's etc are very capable binoculars - and I have pairs by three of these manufacturers - but at the end of the day their resale value is minimal compared to Swaro, Zeiss, Leica, etc. Personally I would also question the quality of construction of these makes compared to the "artefacts" put out by Leica or Swarovski And yes, I have binoculars by both of those makers as well.

Most professional stalkers seem to go for "the big three". It may be dismissed as marketing hype, but you should still ask yourself why?

But what does it really matter? At the end of the day, the only person you need to justify your purchase to is yourself.

willie_gunn

 

[bewsher500]

i bought a Meopta and took it back because i thought the Burris was better, bought a second hand Swaro 8x50 and there ia a world of difference between that and the Burris.

sorry but that doesnt read right
no way in hell a Burris can look clearer than a meopta.
I have yet to find a Burris that didnt resemble a painted kitchen roll tube with cling film over either end...horrible things.

 

[martinl]

You can buy a watch for £5 that will keep perfect time or you can buy a Rolex at £5000 that will keep decent time (ish).
Its the pleasure you get out of owning something.
If you can afford a £2K scope why not buy it.

No pockets in a shroud!

 

[Acm]

I've recently become aware of the recieved wisdom that a scope should cost as much (or, in fact, preferably more than) the rifle it's on.

Really??

What's the logic?

Ive recently learnt about high end scopes . Until 6 months ago I only used the Edgar bros optimate scopes, about 100 quid and I used and liked them , they hold a good zero . I out a new stalking rifle from a dealer this year that came with a zeiss boar scope on it ( 4x32 or something similar ) which was incredible . However I don't like the low mag , so I took it back and payed the dealer 300 quid for a schmidt and bender 8 x 56 in tatty condition , I was over the moon with it and so I've had it reconditioned by Schmidt in Germany . This scope is incredible I once sat in a high seat till 11:45 pm before realising how late it was because I could still see brilliantly . Obviously I packed up as soon as I realised it was illegal to be stalking this late . I only wish Schmidt made binoculars , my advice to you would be to try a expensive scope at night , during the day they are all much the same I find .

 

[Gouldie69]

I have recently touched on this subject matter. I am new to SD and still only using Rimfire 17HMR but looking into stalking. When I bought my rifle I already knew I didn't really have the cash for a semi-decent scope. My local shop sold me a second hand scope for £60 and this has served me well.
However, I have only been bunny bashing and when light levels are low, out comes the lamp.
I discussed my plans to move into stalking in the not-so-distant future with my gunsmith with respect to guns/scopes and I thought he gave me some good advice with respect to scopes.
My plan was to first upgrade my scope on my rimfire to later use it on a centrefire. He simply showed me a scope in the £250 budget I initially had my eye on for my rimfire, (good for 200m) then he showed me a second hand S&B 8x42 (I think).

My inital reactions:
1) WOW! The clarity was superb compared with my current scope.
2) The Reticle design drew my eye in instantly to the centre of the cross hair so aquiring point of aim instantly compared to my existing scope which was simply amazing.

After more conversation, I was then explained that the difference in scope quality would also extend my hours of shooting as the amount of light captured could mean the difference of an extra 15 mins before Dawn and an extra 15 mins after Dusk compared to the cheap model scopes.

if I am to believe the last statement (which I have no reason to doubt), and considering my initial type of shooting can only be classed as "periodic" (due to work commitments), then that extra 30 mins of stalking/hunting per day, as and when I get the opportunity to go, means the more expensive scope will pay for itself in 'pleasure time' in no time at all.

I am totally convinced, so now I am saving as best I can for an expensive scope. He wanted £500 for this scope second hand. (apparently £800 new). There were only a couple of scope ring marks on it. Full warranty etc. but I wasn't in a position to buy.
I have seen them for around £400 second hand and after all, once out the box, they are all second hand!

He gave me one final word of warning, once I buy one, I will NEVER pay less for a scope again!!

I think he might just be correct!

So go have a look thorugh some scopes.

 

[Mungo]

I've looked through plenty of them, in all sorts of conditions.

And still say that, if you didn't know what they were, almost all of us would find it impossible to tell the difference between a £300 scope by someone reputable and a £1500 top end scope.

And even if we could tell the difference, it would have no effect on the outcome of over 99% of our stalks.

However, I do understand the customer care and resale value arguments - which I hadn't really thought about, Good points.

 

[Cyres]

I agree to some extent, I have a pair of Nikula bins which cost £75 and are marginally optically inferior to my Leica for 95% time. However its the last 5% that costs the money. The ergonomics and reliability of my Leicas is beyond reproach, its a bit of a shock when you put them in the sink for a good wash because they are plastered in clay. Would be a big no no for the Nikula.

Very few recreational stalkers need the final edge but if you haven't got NV trying to get a very wary fox at the very edge of light does need good optics, even more frustratring when I can see it through my bins and not through my £1,000 Leupold.

You don't have to buy new and ranges from Meopta are extremly comparable to some of the top european glass. Some of the origanal Japaneese made glass is also very good.

The other thing is with certainly Swarvi you are getting a A+++++ aftercare service just look at the +ve comments on this site.

Also if you buy top end stuff it holds its vaue, I would expect to get my money back if I sold my Geovids CF to current price (not that I would part with them).

Suggest you borrow some Swarvis for your work!!

D

 

[VIGILAIRE]

I think you are a little harsh on Burris here. I have an S&B and a Pecar but have found Burris to be very good for little money and more than adequate for the uses I had for them. Never really thought about how they look as it has never been an issue. Just my opinion.

 

[glogin]

Just dont buy new and dont buy in the UK, 50% money stays in your pocket.

 

[Tom D]

A couple of nights ago I spent half an hour looking through my two scopes at various different things in the dusk,just to compare them, it was well after sunset, about 10:30. The scopes are a new S&B Zenith 3-12x50 RRP £1700ish and a new Leupold VXR 2-7x33 RRP£450ish. There was a difference, but it was slight, and I mean slight. This difference could be down to the smaller objective lens on the Leupold rather than any optical quality difference. Both are really excellent scopes and I am happy with the quality of both, however there is not £800 of difference between them. If I were buying again I am not sure I would pay the extra for a top end european scope, I like the illumination system on both and the build feels comparable.

I have used cheap sub £200 scopes and these are not in the same league as either of mine. I am not saying that all £500 scopes are excellent, I don't know, I do know that my leupold is really great value for money though.

I suspect that one of the reasons that the pro's buy german is the fear factor, letting your neighbour or client see that you have not got a top brand may cause insecurities, whereas having a nice swaro says " I know what I am doing". As a pro tree surgeon I recently bought a makita chainsaw, It was a big step, the first non stihl / husky saw I have owned. A lot of people have sneered at it, it is however a great saw and I am very happy with it......

 

[www.yorkshireroestalking.]

Oh, I understand the distinction between, say, a £40 or so scope and something in the £2-300 bracket (ie. around half the cost of a good rifle). But beyond that? There must be very few shooters who are good enough that the additional quality of the scope will make the blindest bit of difference.

A high end piece of glass will only make a difference once you're shooting is already very, very consistent. Before then, inaccuracy caused by the shooter will mask any minor gains caused by the scope. The simple analogy would be that buying a Ferarri won't improve your driving: you'll only get the best out of it once your've become an extrenely good driver. Up til then, probably best to stick to a Focus...

Better glass is better light transmission, means you can shoot better, later when most animals are moving.
If you are only shooting reds on the hill in good light then a quality 6x42 will be fine.
A sika stag or roe buck under cover in half light or a boar/fox under the moon then thats when the quality pays.

 

[Bavarianbrit]

A 30 year quibble free guarentee from the big three compared to the weaver/redfield/jap-chinese products who go broke every few years to avoid having this chang around their neck.
martin

 

[Acm]

A couple of nights ago I spent half an hour looking through my two scopes at various different things in the dusk,just to compare them, it was well after sunset, about 10:30. The scopes are a new S&B Zenith 3-12x50 RRP £1700ish and a new Leupold VXR 2-7x33 RRP£450ish. There was a difference, but it was slight, and I mean slight. This difference could be down to the smaller objective lens on the Leupold rather than any optical quality difference. Both are really excellent scopes and I am happy with the quality of both, however there is not £800 of difference between them. If I were buying again I am not sure I would pay the extra for a top end european scope, I like the illumination system on both and the build feels comparable.

I have used cheap sub £200 scopes and these are not in the same league as either of mine. I am not saying that all £500 scopes are excellent, I don't know, I do know that my leupold is really great value for money though.

I suspect that one of the reasons that the pro's buy german is the fear factor, letting your neighbour or client see that you have not got a top brand may cause insecurities, whereas having a nice swaro says " I know what I am doing". As a pro tree surgeon I recently bought a makita chainsaw, It was a big step, the first non stihl / husky saw I have owned. A lot of people have sneered at it, it is however a great saw and I am very happy with it......

Ive had a Mikita saw and I thought it was okay , They are in fact just a dolmar which makita bought in 1991 and are made in hamburg , Germany . I'd never have bought a dolmar over my Stihl ms441 had I known .

 

[Mungo]

Better glass is better light transmission, means you can shoot better, later when most animals are moving.
If you are only shooting reds on the hill in good light then a quality 6x42 will be fine.
A sika stag or roe buck under cover in half light or a boar/fox under the moon then thats when the quality pays.

Actually, this really illustrates my point about inaccuracy of the shooter being far more important than quality of the glass: a really good scope might *allow* you to take a shot 15-30 mins later into twilight. But it really doesn't mean you should. I imagine for the vast majority of stalkers, a shot then is drastically more likely to go wrong. Distance estimation is off, outlines are indistinct, movement less apparent etc etc. And then there's the risk of losing a wounded beast. Sure, it's a very different story for professionals.

So yes, I'm sure the top end scopes buy you an extra half hour- at precisely the time most of us should be acknowledging our limitations.

But I'll completely agree that, for a professional, then it makes sense. Not being one, and having no illusions that I'd ever reach that standard, I'll still insist that the 'scope at least as much as the rifle' mantra is nonsense.

 

[caorach]

Actually, this really illustrates my point about inaccuracy of the shooter being far more important than quality of the glass: a really good scope might *allow* you to take a shot 15-30 mins later into twilight. But it really doesn't mean you should.

For many people, especially those stalking sika that are hit hard by poaching, last light is the only chance they will get at a shot. For such people if they didn't shoot 45 minutes after sunset they would simply never get a shot and if they quite and went home at sunset they might not even ever see a single deer.

Different deer and different circumstances require different tactics whether professional or recreational stalker.

 

[jcampbellsmith]

I've recently become aware of the recieved wisdom that a scope should cost as much (or, in fact, preferably more than) the rifle it's on...

It's the advice I was given when I first started buying centrefire rifles and I still follow it. Scopes hold their value, I sold two Swarovski 8x50 scopes for what I paid for them after ten years use. Regards JCS

 

[Claret_Dabbler]

I think this was true when a new Tikka 695 was £450 and a new S&B 8x56 was also £450 - this was my first decent set-up. There were some really sh1tty scopes around 20 years ago at the £100 - £150 mark and a lot of young guys got sucked in. No doubt this was also true 30-40 years ago.

I don't think it is true anymore. It does not seem possible these days to buy a new rifle of good quality for under a grand (Brithunter will probably say it is not possible to buy a good quality new rifle at any price...). However, you can now buy a really good fixed power scope for £500 or thereabouts which will more than do justice to a new £1500 rifle.

By the way, that Tikka / S&B combo would now be worth rather more than the £900 I paid for it 14-15 years ago. If I had bought a £250 Bushnell or whatever then, with would barely be worth a tenner now.

 

[BunnyDoom]

Just spent 850 quid on a zeiss - my hawke was just as good... Gutted!

Someone once said to me "changing scopes is easy, but changing rifles is a bitch - get the best rifle u can afford and an ok scope (£200-300)"


I personally wouldn't spend more than £400 on a scope again - I've looked through a few s&b's at bisley and been disappointed too!

 

[Tom D]

I'd like to see my Leupold alongside some other middle range scopes, just to see if other brands are as good.

 

[rooster]

sorry but that doesnt read right
no way in hell a Burris can look clearer than a meopta.
I have yet to find a Burris that didnt resemble a painted kitchen roll tube with cling film over either end...horrible things.

No idea what your talking about with the "painted kitchen roll tube", it was certainly better built than the the meopro i bought and clearer on the edges and brighter at dusk, also had a better ret. Each to their own but for me the meopta was very poor, they all look good in the shop.